Believability

Imagine this: an assassin is chasing a target in his car; he pulls up alongside the target's car and shoots at him but the windows are bulletproof--the bullet bounces off. So the assassin's partner races directly at him in her car...he drives up and over her hood using it as a ramp, propelling and twisting his car in midair, OVER the target's vehicle which has an open sunroof. The assassin shoots down through the sunroof and kills the target as his car flies overhead.


That's one of the least offensive pieces of farfetched action in the (red-band) trailer for this movie. I haven't read the comic this is based on so as far as I know this is the real world, the characters are real people and they're driving real cars. They're not in the Matrix (at least not that I'm aware of) so we're expected to believe these things based on the setting they take place in. In the Matrix (the first film), the world was set up to allow for lots of scenarios that would be impossible in a normal setting; and the movie worked because of that.

During this trailer I couldn't help but shake my head and say wha-wha-whaaat?? I'm all for pushing the bounds of what viewers (myself included) are willing to believe in movies, but some of the things in this trailer go so far beyond the realm of possibility, that it's just silly.

But isn't silly, ridiculous action good? Well, in certain cases yes, but not if you want the movie or its characters to stay with viewers any longer than the end credits.

The events that occur in a film/comic/etc HAVE to be believable within the context of the world that was set up for them in order for us to care. Otherwise, you have characters that are unstoppable, can do anything, and run no risk of injury; without that there's no threat. Without the threat there's no conflict. Without conflict there's no story.

Rejected titles for this post were "Nuking the Fridge" and "It Falls Three Times".
______________________

This is awesome

Cate Blanchett costumed up for Indy 4. This Annie Liebowitz photo is a great way to start my 2008. I know Indy 4 takes place more than 100 years later, but anyone who has read Rose and Isabel knows why I like this picture.

Happy 2008 everybody!
______________________

Looking back

I hope everyone is enjoying the holidays.

A while back on Current Flavor I posted this, prompting myself to get out to the theater more this year. Unfortunately I was only slightly more successful in that task -- viewing 22 films theatrically vs. 15 last year (ouch). But the good news is I saw MORE films than last year, mostly in the area of new releases and notable films (potential award winners).

I dutifully kept a list of films I saw over the course of the year and here's how it broke down (not including repeat viewings):

2007 (new) releases (theatrical): 22
2007 releases (DVD): 6

Previous releases (DVD or projected DVD): 21

A grand total of 49 films watched.



For those interested, here they are:

2007 NEW FILMS/THEATRICAL/DVD

Waitress
Atonement
Juno

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead
Gone Baby Gone
Michael Clayton
Things We Lost in the Fire
No Country for Old Men

There Will Be Blood (2x)
King of Kong
My Kid Could Paint That
Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Into the Wild

3:10 To Yuma
Paris Je T'aime
The Simpsons Movie
Transformers
Ratatouille(2)

A Mighty Heart
Pirates 3 - At World's End
28 Weeks Later
Hot Fuzz
300

The Host (US release)
Zodiac
The Queen (SF release)
Children of Men (2)
Letters From Iwo Jima

DVD/OLD

3 Days of the Condor (r)

Day Night Day Night
The Isle
All The President's Men
On the Waterfront
Touching the Void

The Train
Last King of Scotland
Little Children
Paths of Glory
Guerilla: The Taking of Patty Hearst

Tale of Two Sisters
Half Nelson
The Lives of Others
Marie Antoinette
The Departed

Land of the Dead (1/4)
Irreversible (1/2)
Thank You For Smoking
The White Diamond
Mission Impossible III

_______________

Happy New Year and see you all in 08!

____________________________________

Favorite Films 2007 (UPDATED 1/9/08)

Here are my favorites (in order):

1. There Will Be Blood
   
2. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
   
3. Michael Clayton
   
4. No Country For Old Men
   
5. Ratatouille/Once

Runners up:

King of Kong

My Kid Could Paint That

What are your favorites? Must sees?

____________________

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (pt.2)

Now that AOJJ has disappeared from local cinemas, it's really started to irk me what a short shrift this film got. It was quikly dispatched from the two screens it was playing on here in Emeryville, and then relegated to the tiny screening room at the Opera Plaza cinema in SF before being shuffled off without even a moment to shine. What an injustice to such a beautiful film.

I was lucky enough to see it in one of its better presentations at the ArcLight in Los Angeles. This film was meant for the big screen. It will be awfully hard to appreciate its beauty and scope on the small screen when it comes to DVD and people finally have a chance to see it.



I got the soundtrack today however and it's fantastic. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis have crafted two of my favorite soundtracks in recent years, for AOJJ and the Proposition. If you have a listen to the soundtrack and haven't seen the film, it's not hard to imagine the imagery that Roger Deakins put up on the screen. Masterful.

Casey Affleck will most likely be overlooked at Oscar time which is too bad as well, he was very very good in the role of Robert Ford, a tragic character that Casey really brought to life.

UPDATE (1/6/08) Regarding my pessimistic and sarcastic remark about awards shows ignoring Casey's performance: much to my delight he is being recognized and just won the National Society of Film Critics award for best supporting actor.
_____________________

Robert Richardson, ASC

I'm a big fan of cinematographer Robert Richardson's work, and wanted to post some stills from The Horse Whisperer which he shot. I wish I had higher quality images because these do absolutely no justice to the magnificence of what he captured with the camera. I really like the film as well; there are a couple scenes in particular that I keep going back to that I hope to analyze here.

The film has been an influence on my work in Rose and Isabel and also with Cora and was the reason I changed the Cora setting from Texas to Montana, where the majority of The Horse Whisperer takes place.

How he got the snow to refract light like that (in stills #4 & #5) I have no idea. Beautiful. I also really like the figure eight/moebius strip of fences in still #6.










More Richardson from Horse Whisperer:

Visual Storytelling - All the President's Men

A conversation I had recently with a director revealed (with some embarrassment) that I had not seen this 70's classic starring Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. So with no hesitation I set to it immediately. Having owned the film on DVD for at least a year it was high time I watched it and it is tremendous. The film is expertly directed by Alan Pakula and Gordon Willis' cinematography is excellent (not to mention the acting and script by William Goldman). One scene in particular really jumped out at me visually so I chose to break it down.

The basic story is of two reporters (Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein played by Redford and Hoffman) who are investigating a possible government conspiracy relating to the Watergate break-in in 1972. In the scene below, Bernstein (Hoffman) goes to the home of a young woman in order to press her for information. Naturally anyone associated with the conspiracy is going to be tight lipped, which is what Hoffman encounters in the scene.

What's important here are the visual choices made by Pakula and Willis to augment the scene, one that easily could have been a very repetitive and uninteresting series of talking heads in the hands of less competent filmmakers.

The breakdown:


Hoffman enters the home and we see immediately the woman he wants to question, separated from him by the rungs of the staircase. Right off the bat there is a separation between the two; impenetrable, like the bars of a jail cell.


Hoffman moves into position to talk to the woman. What really got me here is how Hoffman is placed in the shot -- he has framed the woman into an incredibly claustrophobic bit of screen real estate. She has been squeezed into a section about 1/100th the size of the frame.


Reverse of Hoffman separated from the woman by the bars. Again this is a visual separation to support the script.


Here Hoffman moves clear of the bars to open the conversation with the woman. A visual progression where the intensity (repeating pattern of the bars) has been lowered.


Reverse of the woman clear of the bars, but she is still not revealing anything.


Hoffman returns behind the bars and sits on the couch, trying to prompt a reaction from the woman.


The woman remains behind the bars, confined to her small space. Standoff.


Hoffman chooses to wait it out. Note the lighting of the living room here, because it will change as the scene progresses.


Hoffman has waited the woman out, she loses the game and comes out from behind the bars. A huge turning point in the scene, done visually.


The woman enters the living room and takes a seat across from Hoffman. Note the lighting has changed dramatically from before; her side of the room is now much darker and colder. She is casting a heavy shadow. This continues the visual progression in the scene; where before the progression was with line and shape (bars), now it is done with tone (light and shadows).


Hoffman resumes his questioning; note he is on the dark side of the couch.


Hoffman is served a cup of coffee and he moves to the light side of the couch (another progression of tone) next to the lamp.
What has been set up now is a classic interrogation scene. Hoffman asking the questions with a strong single light source over his shoulder.


Continuation of the interrogation scene, where the woman is lit by one source and casting a heavy shadow. The camera has pushed in on her, increasing the intensity. The questioning resumes in these two shots until the final shot.


Final shot of the scene - the woman has given Hoffman a lot of information regarding the case he is trying to build, but still manages to keep some of it hidden from him. This is reperesented (along with her requested anonymity) by the lamp which covers her face. I love this ending shot, it's a bold choice and speaks volumes.
_____________________

Composition, part 3

LINE, SPACE and GROUPING:

Some of you may remember the composition posts from Current Flavor. I found these images from The Royal Tenenbaums in a folder and thought it to be a good time for another post.

I'm fascinated by Wes Anderson's use of flat space in his films and his ablility to create dynamic and excitng compositions using flat space (at times combined with deep space) that engage the eye as well as direct the viewer's attention.

Here are a few examples of such shots. I've added arrows to indicate flat space elements and diagonal points of interest.

Generating Interest with LINE:

LINE is one of the building blocks of visual structure and can be broken down into horizontal (least intensity), vertical (more intensity) and diagonal (most intensity). Here are the examples:


Mostly flat space shot of Margot; notice how she generates the strongest diagonals in the shot (phone cord, angle of neck/head, leg), creating an area of interest for the viewer that contrasts with the flat space surrounding her. Those familiar with the rule of thirds will see she's placed right on a dividing line.



Same scene, but this time it's Ethel's posture that's creating the interest. She is engaging Margot at this point. Ethel is active, Margot is passive. The body language says it all here and again they are surrounded by flat space elements.

Generating interest with SPACE:


This is sort of anti-rule of thirds. In this scene there is confrontation between the three characters. They are all squashed into the middle third of the frame, cramping it and raising the intensity. All the characters are vertical lines (not that intense), so it's the deep space and the arrangement of the characters that create the intensity. I like the camera placement here too; it's just above the eyelines of the characters; just high enough to be interesting and to keep us with the characters. Any higher and the shot would start to lose intensity.



Deep space again. Note the perspecting heads leading the eye to Eli. They are all perfectly placed, and for all intents and purposes, TOO perfect. But that is part of the director's style and the shot is richer for it. his face is also at the vanishing point of the shot and all other perspecting lines lead right to it.


Grouping:

I like these shots for how elements are grouped together. The first one is especially interesting to me, with the choice to put the homeless guy up there in the right hand corner and the caution cone and sawhorses in the left corner with Margo and the car being a bridge between the two.

Could this shot work without those other elements? Sure. But it's those extra bits that add interest and texture.


These bottom two shots speak for themselves - showcases for the awesome and hilarious art on Eli's walls. Anderson knew this was going to get a huge laugh; the characters basically have no dialogue here other than "what?" "did you say something?" and "No, I thought you said something".




_____________________

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

I had been anxiously awaiting this film for over a year and finally had an opportunity to see it in LA. The film is still swirling around in my head, so no personal review yet, but I will say that I really enjoyed the film and an SF Chronicle critic simply missed the point when he said this:

"Who would have guessed that a biopic about Jesse James could be so boring? Instead of covering the action-packed parts of James’ life, this movie by “Chopper” director Andrew Dominik chronicles James’ final days and death at the hand of Ford. As a piece of visual art, the movie is often amazing. But as a piece of entertainment, it’s ponderous and spectacularly lacking in action. Pitt seems lost as James, and Affleck as Ford bears too strong a resemblance to wannabe JonBenet Ramsey killer John Karr."

Well, first off, the film isn't "about" Jesse James. And secondly, god forbid entertainment that ISN'T force fed to the audience, action scene after action scene gouged into our eyes, pounding our senses into oblivion with no trace of soul whatsoever. The film is a CHARACTER PIECE, something that's becoming more and more of a rarity in film these days.

The film is 2 hours and 40 minutes and I didn't lose interest for a moment of it.

More later.
____________________

Story: What not to tell?

I've wanted to post something about this topic ever since I saw Children of Men for the first time. When I saw the film's trailer I was worried it was going to be a film about "why women can no longer have babies"; the idea sounded very high-concept to me and I was reluctant to even see the film. When I did see it, I was pleasantly surprised that the reason why women could no longer reproduce was LEFT OUT of the film. Not explained. And it was a brilliant move. What we're left with is what has happened as a result of such a tragic occurrence and what may eventually happen when a baby is miraculously born.

Just a few days ago I finished reading the Pulitzer prize winning book, "The Road" by Cormack McCarthy, a post apocalyptic road story about a father and his son. We never find out what happened to the world which has been all but destroyed, but it doesn't matter. I was so wrapped up in the character relationships and McCarthy's incredible depictions of the world that I didn't care. Another perfect case of leaving something out in order to support the story.



So in these cases what's left out is just as important as what's put in. I've heard this many times and experienced it with regard to music as well (especially jazz) that when you choose not to play can be just as important was when you do.

That said, it happened again this morning when I watched the trailer for "Day Night Day Night" about a woman who has signed on to complete a horrific task. The trailer tells us nothing about her employers, and it appears we're going to be with her in her head for the duration of the film. It hasn't been released where I live yet, but I'm anxious to check it out. See the trailer here.

1...2...3...Hollywoodize

A few years ago I saw a small and charming foreign film about cooking called Mostly Martha, written and directed by Sandra Nettelbeck. I wasn't familiar with any of the lead actors and had no expectations going in but I was very pleasantly surprised by this film for it had warmth, charm and drama to compliment it's mostly saccharine and comedic American trailer. It was one of my favorites of all the films I saw that year.

Five years later, I'm a bit surprised to see Hollywood has decided to remake the flim, injecting A list star power and crafting an equally if not more overpoweringly saccharine trailer to promote the film. I can only question -- why? I was fooled by the trailer for Mostly Martha because the film was so much more than its American trailer made it to be, but for the Hollywood remake, I don't have high hopes.



Trailers:
Mostly Martha (American trailer -- unable to find international trailer)
No Reservations

Smart Comedy

Oxymoron? In most cases for comedy these days yes, but not when it comes to HOT FUZZ. So far Pegg and Wright can do no wrong. I was not a big fan of spoof films (ESPECIALLY zombie spoofs) until I saw Shaun of the Dead which made me realize that comedy and action (and in this case horror too) can go together. I was thorougly entertained and laughed a lot during the film; it was even funnier than 300. It has a very sharp script, creative camerawork, excellent editing, great actors and Wright is not afraid to push the gore along with everything else but selectively so as to not make it tiring. There is a section in the finale that made me howl, but I won't reveal it yet. Comic brilliance. See it.

Best films of the last 20 years (1986-2005)

A few of us were in the story war room the other day and the "AFI's Best 100 Films of All Time" list happened to be on the table. Naturally, for a group of story folks, discussion ensued about the validity of some of the films on that list. Then I proposed that we make our own lists except to limit them to our 20 favorite/best films from the past 20 years (1986-2005). They must be films that we like but also qualify to be on a "best of" list (ie - no guilty pleasure films, "so bad it's good" films, or sentimental favorites).


The task proved to be a lot more difficult than we expected; off the top of my head I had listed 37 films and had the excruciating task of eliminating 17 of them. (Interestingly, there was a general consensus as we looked up release dates for certain films that a lot of our favorites were made in the early 80's, out of range of our 20 year cutoff point).

Here are mine (off the top of my head and subject to change at any moment) and in order by release date:

Aliens (1986)
Raising Arizona (1987)
Die Hard (1988)
Totoro (1988)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Goodfellas (1990)
Delicatessen (1991)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Unforgiven (1992)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Se7en (1995)
Toy Story (1995)
The English Patient (1996)
Slingblade (1996)
Trainspotting (1996)
Good Will Hunting (1997)
Rushmore (1998)
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
LOTR - Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

20 Notables/favorites (1986-2006):

Laputa (1986)
T2 (1991)
Red (1994)
Nixon (1995)
Fargo (1996)
King of the Hill (1997)
LA Confidential (1997)
The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
The Iron Giant (1999)
Toy Story 2 (1999)
Amores Perros (2000)
Amelie (2001)
Spirited Away (2001)
Y Tu Mama También (2001)
City of God (2002)
The Pianist (2002)
The Incredibles (2004)
Good Night and Good Luck (2005)
Grizzly Man (2005)

Check out more lists at CLOCKROOM

Previous comments
__________________________

Storyboard Study: Action

Here's another of those storyboard breakdowns I did a while back. This is part of one of my favorite action scenes, the attack on a caravan in Clear and Present Danger (directed by Philip Noyce).

I wanted to break it down to try and get into the director's head because this scene is very entertaining and very clear, two things you don't find together very often in action scenes today. These boards read across the page, not up and down like in The Gift board study.

Of special note is the 180 degree camera rotation in the third row. It's a great move, and introduces the bad guy. The 180 spin really tells us someting is going to happen that is not the norm; a perfect usage of WHY to go over the 180 line (see the "Over the Line" post).

Also note the low angle on page 2, row 2; this is another big moment where the imposter shoots the real motorcycle cop.
The close up in row 4 shows us the determination on the bad guy's face; he has succeded in infiltrating the caravan. These three moments are the key bits of storytelling in this short section and the shots tell us this.

When I get around to it, I'd really like to draw up and break down the second half of the scene...

Storyboard Study - Building Suspense in "The Gift"

I did this exercise a few years ago while watching Sam Raimi's "The Gift". There's a scene in there that has a really nice dramatic and suspenseful build to it, so I decided to break it down into shots to figure out what made it work. This is a really great exercise for anyone who is interested in storyboarding or what makes a good scene work. I learned quite a bit from it.

Note the shot economy: there are only 12 total shots in the scene.

(the progression on each page is from top to bottom on the left side, then top to bottom on the right side.)

Composition, part 2

Aarrrrg! Part of this post was deleted and is unrecoverable by Blogger...

This is a continuation of last week's post about composition. Every time I look at films like this one I notice new things. Here are some more of my observations. Feel free to discuss in the comments section...


A combination of flat and deep space; the doorframe providing the flat space as well as framing what's inside. The door is angled perfectly to shoot your eye right at the mouse habiat in the background.

Also a combination of flat and deep space; the foreground elements of the table, computer, phones, lamp, coffee maker and the punching bag are all pretty much flat, and again are framing the deep space. The coffee maker and lamp are framing Chas. Although he is very small in the frame, those elements focus the eye on him (Chas' posture is a diagonal, one of the strongest ones in the shot).

Great shot; you can see 11 individual faces here, but two are important (Royal and Margot). Royal is the largest whole figure in the shot; Margot is the smallest figure; two extremes that draw the eye to them. Margot is smack dab in the middle of the shot, framed by the other characters, and if that's not enough, she's looking right into the camera lens. A diagonal of perspecting heads takes the eye from Royal to Margot. No confusion on where to look here!

All flat elements in this shot...not one diagonal here; great arrangement of shapes.

Composition, part 1

I love Wes Anderson's films; I refer to them often when I'm storyboarding because of the way they are composed. I love the flat space staging, the design of the shots. It's very hard to stage something in flat space without making it look, well, flat.

That's where the design of the frame comes in. The placement of characters, props, lighting; things to move your eye and keep you interested. Below are some shots form the prologue of The Royal Tenenbaums that illustrate this idea very well. Not all of the shots are flat space of course, but to me, for some reason, the shots with diagonals and shapes that recede in perspective still seem to imply flat space, like a storybook. And that's a GOOD thing.


Title card; totally flat, as well as symmetrical, with the mouse added for interest (also a story point). Also of note is the use of color here. Pink against green. Who would've thought? (pink, green and brown are dominant throughout the film).


Flat again, with just a dab of asymmetry.


Although the buildings recede in perspective, this shot is still flat. The tops of the buildings form a straight line that cuts right through the middle of the frame. (notice the color on the flag; green and pink)


Deep space. I love the placement of the actor Gene Hackman here; taking full advantage of the 2:35 frame. There is a tiny swatch of warm orange in the doorway to emphasize him.


Awesome staging. Great use of the wide frame and interesting placement of characters. This is flat space again; there are only two (yup, two) diagonals in the shot; the molding on the wall behind Margot's head and the angle of the book she's reading. Both are angling towards Etheline (Anjelica Huston), the focus of the shot.

The book Margot is reading is cheated to the camera so we can see the title (Chekhov - she is smart and like plays). Chas' head is out of frame and he's standing in profile to the camera, creating flat space (supporting his rigid and analytical nature). Richie is wearing tennis gear and looking at a book of maps (when we first meet the adult Richie, he is traveling). There is so much information just in this one shot, all because of the way it's composed.

More to come next week.